You can leave questions here while I contemplate my next thread.
Young 'uns will tell their grandchildren.
They said "solicit and pressure."
In colloquial terms, that would be bribery and extortion, but there are solid reasons for avoiding the criminal code.
The framers expected this when they decided not to give the power of removal to the Supreme Court, and instead gave it to Congress.
Clinton's public approval went UP after he was impeached . . .
Talk to people, spread the word, write letters, put a sign on your lawn.
The goal is to save democracy, which means hemming Trump in right now so cheating is harder.
It means duplicating the 2018 election results in 2020.
House is making clear that they're not playing politics with timing. Expert witnesses said "If this isn't impeachable, nothing is," and Trump presents an on-going threat.
Not impeaching right now . . .
The cases continue. The attempt to get financials continue.
Remember in 2016 the talk of the October Surprise?
The terrible timing happened because Russia interfered.
Suppose the natural result of Trump's stalling and stonewalling. . .
I have an idea about this👇
The House Managers. . .
What stops them from saying, "We call McGahn" or "we call Mazars and order them to bring documents."
They'll refuse, but now they're defying a trial in progress on live TV with cameras rolling (will cameras be rolling?). . .
People understand that innocent people don't try to hide evidence. Also there you have it: Live proof of Contempt of Congress.
Any evidence obtained between now and the trial can certainly be introduced.
In the Clinton impeachment, voting on the articles was treated like voting on a bill: Once the vote happened, the matter automatically transfers to the Senate.
There are also good policy reasons against it.
Private crimes (like tax fraud) are embarrassing and obviously point to dishonesty, but that's not what the framers had in mind as impeachable . . .
See:
On the other hand, if the documents . . .
If something like that comes out 5 months before an election, you won't have to worry about Trump getting elected.
If that comes out along with proof that . . .
(and of course they knew. Yale Prof. @TimothyDSnyder and @just_security have outlined it in detail) but it hasn't sunk into the public consciousness.
💠The House must do its duty and the facts warrant impeachment
💠The public is educated as to the tricks Trump is trying to pull. Remember the antidote to the firehose of lies is raincoats on the population.
"My client also does good things," doesn't help with conviction (but it might with sentencing)
I don't think you have to worry about Trump shutting down the government this year and tanking his approval ratings😉
#2: They are using the Mueller case to show pattern and practice. That way they don't have to litigate it and prove it . . .
This has a names in evidence law. The rules of evidence don't apply, so we'll just give it as common sense: He did it before. He's doing it now. He'll do It again.
Right now, the House GOP are shielding Trump.
What if the Senate GOP decides not to? What if they decide they need a fair and open trial or they'll get roasted in Nov 2020.
One thing made clear at the Clinton Senate trial was that the Senators are both judge and jury.
At the same time, this isn't a normal court, so the usual rules that apply to jurors and judges don't apply.
If the Framers wanted this to be . . .
Instead they gave it to elected officials beholden to their constituents.
I have several threads on this. Check my blog. Search for "firehose"
cannot be used corruptly.
He can't pardon his way out of this, don't worry. That would be more abuse of power.
If someone has ideas for a good yard sign slogan, add it here. (If not that many people get this far down into the thread, I can try later with a separate tweet to get ideas)
If they want to shield Trump, the way to do that is to have a trial and find him not guilty, not leave an accusation hanging over him.
I think the GOP Senators are caught between a rock and a hard place right now.
I can't imagine him not mounting a defense.
It's hard to imagine. . .
But we're definitely through the looking glass already, so I don't put anything at all past the Trump-FOX-GOP.
Personally I think a laundry list of Articles would be a bad idea.
Focussing on the behavior that the expert witnesses pointed to as dangerous and what the framers intended for impeachment has advantages.
I've seen some non-lawyers misread this.
But consider what a production it is. All those hearings!
Last spring, some of the people saying "Just impeach right now" didn't really understand the process . . .
Trials can go quickly (a person can be convicted in a day) but the investigations and process to get to the indictment takes lots of time.
This took MONTHS and they went at lightening speed.
I also have a lot of respect for @BarryBerke, @danielsgoldman, @NormEisen, etc.
My training as an appellate lawyer is to see both sides.
In this case, I really do see both sides, that includes understanding why the House is moving forward now.
There are measures short of impeachment, like censure.
How about this . . .
And . . .
In other words, the timing wasn't because Democrats played politics.
It was because Trump obstructed.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for criminal trials)
This is more akin to a civil proceeding.
The question is whether Trump keeps his job.
Criminal trials involve . . .
Trump wants the highest possible standard to make it harder to remove him.
This is why I'm glad they didn't talk about bribery, because this will confuse people into thinking criminal standards apply.
nbcnews.com/politics/trump…
Article 2 is Obstruction of Congress, which goes to Trump's attack on the Constitutional order.